On Cowards and Heroes

[journey]

can you defend that statement?

without relying on emotion?

in what way am i acting cowardly?

Mocking the dead is low and cowardly. They're not here to answer your charges.

 

[ok doser]

Mocking the dead is low and cowardly. They're not here to answer your charges.

1. many of those who were locked in that classroom are not dead
2. i'm not mocking the dead
3. i'm not mocking the living
4. i'm not making "charges"
5. i'm examining their actions and defining them using dictionary definitions
6. some of those (the first shot, the girl in the wheelchair) were not in a position where they could have acted otherwise, where they had an opportunity to display courage in the face of danger

 

[chair]

I know a man who did something "heroic" in WWII. Pacific theater. Something dangerous that saved the lives of his unit. He got a silver star for this.

Were the other men in his unit cowards? I think not.

Did he go about bragging about this? No. I knew this man for over 40 years before I heard the story.

 

[elohiym]

5. i'm examining their actions and defining them using dictionary definitions

When you examine your actions in the face of the daily slaughter of unborn children by colleges in your profession, do you see yourself as a coward?

 

[elohiym]

i deal with it all the time

i've seen people in acute psychological shock dive into freezing water to rescue a child who is drowning

they do not show a want of courage


i've also seen people in acute psychological shock curl up and start sucking their thumbs

they do show a want of courage

Courage isn't always desirable or essential. The point about lifeguard training being essential in such situations has been made, but I will add to that many of us were trained to "reach, throw, row but never go" since childhood, and that's because the idea saves lives (it's not about cowardice).

Had I been standing on the ice that day, my want of courage (not want in the archaic sense) would have been constrained by my courage to remain alive for my wife and eight children and recognizing that I am not a lifeguard and have been taught by professionals my whole life to "never go."

Had I been at UCC that day in that classroom, I believe my thoughts would have been on living for my wife and eight children. Interestingly, the hero of the story made a plea for his life at gunpoint, claiming it was his child's birthday. My responsibility to my wife and children is greater than my responsibility to classroom acquaintances, and then I must consider it could get more people killed or injured faster by taking the wrong action.

 

[journey]

1. many of those who were locked in that classroom are not dead
2. i'm not mocking the dead
3. i'm not mocking the living
4. i'm not making "charges"
5. i'm examining their actions and defining them using dictionary definitions
6. some of those (the first shot, the girl in the wheelchair) were not in a position where they could have acted otherwise, where they had an opportunity to display courage in the face of danger

You're calling the dead and survivors cowards. I call that "charges". Your so-called examination is low and cowardly. You weren't there, and I'm not interested in your so-called examination.

 

[quip]

I'll come back to this later to support my statement that most of the victims in the Umpqua shooting (as well as the Colorado movie theater shooting) acted cowardly

I plan to use dictionary definitions! :banana:

and logical analysis!! :banana::banana:



i expect my opponents will use emotion :darwinsm:



go ahead and start if you like, i have a test looming and a paper to write, but i will be back

Heroism is the exception not the norm. That's why they're lauded as....well, heroes. :idunno:

 

[bybee]

Heroism is the exception not the norm. That's why they're lauded as....well, heroes. :idunno:

"Hero" writ large is, perhaps, exceptional, but, I venture to say that every day unsung heroes go about their business and help to make the world a better place.

 

[ok doser]

You're calling the dead and survivors cowards.

not all of them

just the ones who acted cowardly, the ones who displayed ignoble fear or want of courage in the face of danger,

I call that "charges".

i call it applying the dictionary definition to their actions

Your so-called examination is low and cowardly.

that's an emotional argument that you can't support

You weren't there

others have made the same point and it's puzzled me as to why some think this has any relevancy

are there new rules that one can only examine events that one was present for?

, and I'm not interested in your so-called examination.

and yet here you are in my thread :think:

 

[ok doser]

Heroism is the exception not the norm. That's why they're lauded as....well, heroes. :idunno:

indeed

i'll return to this when i develop the paradigm shift that has occurred that we, as a society, are slow to recognize

 

[ok doser]

When you examine your actions in the face of the daily slaughter of unborn children by colleges in your profession, do you see yourself as a coward?

as defined by "one who displays ignoble fear or want of courage in the face of danger, pain, or difficulty"?

nope

Courage isn't always desirable or essential.

in a situation where your fellow classmates are being slaughtered? :freak:

The point about lifeguard training being essential in such situations has been made, but I will add to that many of us were trained to "reach, throw, row but never go" since childhood, and that's because the idea saves lives (it's not about cowardice).

no, it's because we've been trained to be sheep, to value our own safety more than that of others

Had I been standing on the ice that day, my want of courage (not want in the archaic sense) would have been constrained by my courage to remain alive for my wife and eight children and recognizing that I am not a lifeguard and have been taught by professionals my whole life to "never go."

right, you've been trained to be a sheep

Had I been at UCC that day in that classroom, I believe my thoughts would have been on living for my wife and eight children.

iow, you would have feared losing your life and the effect it would have had on your family

and you would have allowed that fear to rule you, while you watched your fellow classmates get slaughtered

Interestingly, the hero of the story made a plea for his life at gunpoint, claiming it was his child's birthday.

after running toward the danger to assist others in need

My responsibility to my wife and children is greater than my responsibility to classroom acquaintances

:nono:

, and then I must consider it could get more people killed or injured faster by taking the wrong action.

the right action is always to oppose evil

 

[ok doser]

looks like town's reluctant to engage, so i'll bring his response over here and address it:

Gazette Editorial


No one who witnessed 911 responders rushing into harms way, or has heard the tales of members of the armed forces winning medals of valor for placing their lives in jeopardy to defend their fellows could be confused on the point of their personal courage. And we've all heard of family members casting aside the thought of personal safety to protect their loved ones. More rarely, people will rise to a moment in defense of friends. Rarest of all, doing so for strangers sans that military or other training on the point.

But most people in those situations don't respond heroically. Overwhelmingly, they don't. And there's no cowardice in an absence of heroism.

In fact, most soldiers, men trained to respond to that sort of thing, don't receive medals of valor. Most who do meet the moment heroically, the vast majority of that overwhelming minority do so in defense of people they've been trained to protect in situations they've been drilled to respond to in ways the rest of us simply aren't.

We shouldn't confuse or conflate the absence of that action and training with cowardice or play word games to defame the dead. If you haven't had the training you're likely going to respond instinctively and most of the time that's going to mean you'll put as much distance as you can between you and a lethal instrument. That isn't cowardice. That's a very understandable and human reaction.

Should we celebrate and acknowledge great acts of courage? Of course. We simply shouldn't expect those acts to define the normal or expected or cast aspersions on those who fail to meet that mark, as most do and will. If professional soldiers don't typically manage it, the chance of you doing it without that training are slim.

If you haven't found yourself confronted with violence, you can't know how you'll respond to it. For most of you the answer won't look like it does for a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. And there's no shame in that. There is shame and a sort of cowardice in attacking the defenseless though and their reputations. So try not to do that if you can help yourself.

and invite him back

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4497912&postcount=2007

 

[ok doser]

No one who witnessed 911 responders rushing into harms way, or has heard the tales of members of the armed forces winning medals of valor for placing their lives in jeopardy to defend their fellows could be confused on the point of their personal courage.

true

and totally irrelevant to the situation under consideration

And we've all heard of family members casting aside the thought of personal safety to protect their loved ones. More rarely, people will rise to a moment in defense of friends. Rarest of all, doing so for strangers sans that military or other training on the point.

again true

and again, irrelevant

but you did get to slip in "sans" :chuckle:

and "on the point" :chuckle:

impressive as all get out! :thumb:

too bad you couldn't manage a "the compact" or "the holy"

But most people in those situations don't respond heroically.

which situations?

the ones you're referring to that are irrelevant?

how about addressing the situation at hand, where a classroom of students was locked in with a gun totin' retard?

Overwhelmingly, they don't. And there's no cowardice in an absence of heroism.

well, let's see what the boys at oxford have to say about that:

coward, n. ... one who displays ... want of courage in the face of danger, pain, or difficulty

oxford sez you're wrong

sorry :idunno:

In fact, most soldiers, men trained to respond to that sort of thing, don't receive medals of valor. Most who do meet the moment heroically, the vast majority of that overwhelming minority do so in defense of people they've been trained to protect in situations they've been drilled to respond to in ways the rest of us simply aren't.

again, irrelevant

We shouldn't confuse or conflate the absence of that action and training with cowardice

a soldier who allows his fear to prevent him from acting courageously is indeed a coward

or play word games to defame the dead.

now this is one reason i tend to doubt your claims to an education in the law

first year law school should have taught you that a necessary component of defamation is falsehood

that you are ignorant of this tends to make one suspect that your bonafides aren't quite what you claim :think:

or maybe you just slept through first year law :idunno:

If you haven't had the training you're likely going to respond instinctively and most of the time that's going to mean you'll put as much distance as you can between you and a lethal instrument. That isn't cowardice.

it is if others are dying and might have been saved if you had acted courageously instead of fearfully

That's a very understandable and human reaction.

for humans that have been conditioned by society to act like fearful sheep, yes

Should we celebrate and acknowledge great acts of courage? Of course. We simply shouldn't expect those acts to define the normal or expected

why not?

why not expect great things of our young people?

i worked with young boy scouts for years and we celebrated acts of courage and trained our boys to be prepared to meet challenging situations, not to run away in fear

why shouldn't we expect that to be normal?

or cast aspersions on those who fail to meet that mark

i call it "describing their actions according to dictionary definitions"

if you think it casts aspersions on their cowardly behavior, well then, that's just you letting your emotions rule you :idunno:

If you haven't found yourself confronted with violence, you can't know how you'll respond to it.

one can't "know" anything about the future

if, on the other hand, you have been trained to be prepared to confront evil, to put aside your fear in an emergency situation? then you can have greater confidence that you won't respond in a way that will meet the dictionary definition of "cowardly"

For most of you the answer won't look like it does for a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. And there's no shame in that.

there is shame if you let your fear prevent you from confronting a threat and instead watch your classmates get slaughtered

There is shame and a sort of cowardice in attacking the defenseless though and their reputations.

another unsupportable assertion from emotion

So try not to do that if you can help yourself.

right - let's not have a conversation about how cowardly it is to cower in fear while your classmates get slaughtered :kookoo:

 

[ok doser]

and invite him back

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4497912&postcount=2007

aww, too frightening for him i guess - he takes a swipe at me and locks his thread:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4498124&postcount=2012



still, he's always welcome to make the effort if he ever feels brave enough :wave2:

 

[ok doser]

sorry chair - i meant to come back to this earlier

I know a man who did something "heroic" in WWII. Pacific theater. Something dangerous that saved the lives of his unit. He got a silver star for this.

Were the other men in his unit cowards? I think not.

not unless they let their fear prevent them from doing their job

Did he go about bragging about this? No. I knew this man for over 40 years before I heard the story.

most ww2 vets i knew who saw action were reluctant to talk about it

 

[journey]

ok doser,

Real men don't attack the dead or others not present to defend themselves. To do so is cowardly. It's also sick and twisted.

 

[ok doser]

ok doser,

Real men don't attack the dead or others not present to defend themselves. To do so is cowardly. It's also sick and twisted.

thinking that i'm attacking them is an argument from emotion

and i'm not interested in arguing emotion


now, if you can show using the dictionary definitions provided that the actions of many there do not show a want of courage, go right ahead

 

[glorydaz]

thinking that i'm attacking them is an argument from emotion

and i'm not interested in arguing emotion


now, if you can show using the dictionary definitions provided that the actions of many there do not show a want of courage, go right ahead

Courage isn't stupid. It isn't courage to jump out of a speeding car because someone is drowning in the river. That's just stupid. It's a "want of brains".

 

[ok doser]

Courage isn't stupid. It isn't courage to jump out of a speeding car because someone is drowning in the river. That's just stupid. It's a "want of brains".

was todd beamer stupid?

 

[ok doser]

did Chris Mintz have a lack of brains?